9/11 : Ten Years?!

[dingodan]

i dont think you or the truthers quite graps the level of "access" required. its one thing to run some ethernet through ducting and underfloor/ceiling voids. its quite another to go drilling holes into concrete, cutting it away to expose steelwork, drilling steelwork directly, without making alot of mess and taking alot of time. you love youtube, go find and watch a program on demolition, they take weeks to rig an empty building 1/4 the size.

I don't know the exact process of rigging a building for demolition, sounds like you have experience in it so perhaps you know better than me.

I was addressing the question of opportunity, a fair question people had raised. I don't know if you watched the video but it also points out that from 1996 - 2000 Securacom installed a "new security system" in the world trade centre. It points out the connections between those working for Securacom and the administration and I guess is suggesting that this 4 year installation could also have provided opportunity.

the database adminstrator is right that the notice period is unusually short, however its not uncommon to cut power. or rather, to tell people they are to cut power. typically you have an out window, far long than the time necessary. working on core power/networking infrastructure you might well tell everyone everything is going down but not actually do so or admins might take servers offline as a precaution against corruption (better to control the outage). if the systems arent needed over a weekend, this would certanly be my choice.

You might be right, but this suggestion is just as speculative as anything else. We can't know why there was a power down that weekend. And as the database administrator said, he tried to have this question looked into and he was ignored.

really? really? do you actually realise what you say here? because theory x is flawed theory y is better on that basis alone. fundemental logical fallacy. you are basicly saying that you *want* there to be a conspiracy. for all the faults of the offical version, the conspiracies arent even consistant with themselves, with mulitple conflicting ideas thrown together. yet you believe that, not because its because its better explaination (how could it be), but simply because its not the official version.

I'm not saying that at all. And it is a better explanation, its not a perfect explanation, its just a better explanation than the official one.

On a more general level this whole discussion is problematic. There are so many unanswered question, and people seek answers to them. In seeking to answer them they might come up with a theory, or perhaps find a piece of evidence which suggests an alternative answer. This is all fair enough, and as far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with well controlled speculation.

But for the most part poeple are not saying they know what happened, rather they have questions which they want answers to. Its not fair to suggest that if someone says there were no planes (for example) that everyone who has these questions holds the same view.

I think it is right that theories are tested and scrutinized, as they should be, but alot of time is spent finding fault with a "conspiracy theory", rather than trying to answering the question which inspired it.

 

[dingodan]

-symmetrical collapse - it, like WTC1 & 2, falls from the top down, not the bottom up. The fact it falls into itself is very, very basic. The damage done when WTC1 or 2 (forgive me I don't know which) hit WTC7 destroyed one side of the building, and started fires which burned for hours and hours after the two main towers had fallen. Steel does not need to melt into liquid to lose its structural integrity and it's load-bearing capabilities. The damage done had the same effect as the plane+jet fuel in the main towers - structural damage, followed by weakening of supports, causing the top floor to collapse onto the one below, onto the one below that, and so on.

Wow you talk like you examined the wreckage, did you? We can only speculate, and that includes you. This would make WTC7 only the 3rd building in history to collapse from fire. The first 2 were WTC1 & WTC2. You believe that, fair enough. I don't.

-I think Silverstein did mean pull the people out. They'd seen two buildings damaged and burning and built in the same way fall already. What was the point of more loss of life. His exact quote can be interpreted one of two ways, pull people out, or 'pull the cord' and destroy the building. I believe the former.

Ok, thats what you think, fair enough. Note that he said "decision to pull...and then we watched the building collapse." It sounded like the building collapsing was as a consequence of the "decision to pull" but that is just how I hear it.

-They were warned it was coming down - in the same way as the WTC1&2. I think I would have moved myself way out of the way of any burning, damaged buildings that day. This is not an unusual quote for the day.

So you mean they knew it would collapse? WTC1 & 2 collapsed unexpectedly. There were skyscrapers closer to ground zero than WTC7 that did not collapse.

-The BBC report winds me up the most. In the utter, utter chaos of the day, the misinformation, the news networks scrambling for answers, for clear details, there were mistakes made. Of course there were. But conspiracy theorists cling to this news report(wtf?) as if the BBC were somehow 'in on' the whole thing. If someone's opinion is that the BBC knew about a conspiracy, and that 7 was going to be destroyed by controlled demolition, and reported it early, good luck to them. I think the more plausible explanation is they made a mistake.

I believe they made a mistake, who said the BBC were in on it. The story of the collapse would have (I expect) come from the wire service. Where the story originated we don't know, but someone somewhere seems to have known it was going to come down, the story coming 20 minutes before the event.

Please understand - this is not an attack on you personally lolol: wait for it). But I find the conspiracy theories and theorists completely hypocritical in that the argument is 'open your eyes' and 'ask the question', which is very admirable, but they refuse to open their own eyes to the more plausible, unfortunate truth. Some zealous nutters caught the US napping. Shit security + people who can fly planes = disaster. Not conspiracy. Just negligence, carelessness, complacency.

Sounds great. Just does'nt bare out with a disciplined objective review of the facts.

Im glad you are giving an opinion on this, I find it annoying that you talk like you are correcting me, only to go on and give what is clearly your opinion. You are welcome to your opinion, but to be fair so am I.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't know the exact process of rigging a building for demolition, sounds like you have experience in it so perhaps you know better than me.

i didnt claim experience, just watched those that do in action and listen to them when they've ridiculed the idea that this could have been a demolition job. i do have experience of cabling, and know that the ducting and voids make it easy to lay cables, but these are in non-structural areas (void being the clue. its otherwise empty space).

I'm not saying that at all. And it is a better explanation, its not a perfect explanation, its just a better explanation than the official one.

yes you are saying that, maybe you simply fail at comprehending logic. mos the conspiracies theoris are not better than the official one, i.e. the control demolition theory has more questions and flaws, some outright contradicting others (see explosions/thermite, reaons and prove for, page 1).

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Has anyone mentioned that Larry Silverstein re-insured the buildings not long before 9/11? To cover them being attacked as being two seperate incidents rather than being considered one. That is the only thing that still makes me wonder a little bit, but not really. It's just one of those things, it looks bad but was innocent. I've been fascinated by 9/11 for about 7 years, and have many DVDs sitting in front of me on the shelf, and I've spent a lot of hours on YouTube watching all the videos, and I've seen all the TV programmes. I firmly believed for the first few years that there were things we weren't told about on the day, but as the years have gone on and I've re-watched the programmes and thought a little bit more about it, it's not possible it was an inside job. The planes weren't military aircraft, the towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition, the fire in the buildings did cause the collapse and there is nothing weird about the way the Baudet brothers captured the first planes impact.

On the other hand, I have always considered 9/11 to be an attack on the Twin Towers. What happened at the Pentagon is a different matter for me. Do I think a plane hit it? No. Catagorically, no. I don't understand why all the CCTV from the hotels, petrol station and street cameras were confiscated, and very quickly. I don't know what I think happened there. There are peoples names listed as having died on the plane which allegedly hit, I don't think that they were rounded up and shot in some warehouse somewhere. But I don't understand why there was no sign of a plane at the Pentagon. I just want to see the CCTV pictures for my own peace of mind, but I understand that won't ever happen.

Flight 93 remains the bravest and patriotic act by a large group of people I can think of.

 

[thejackal]

to the conspiracy believers/truthers:

2. given the above, when did the tons of explosives/thermite get placed into the building? bearing in mind that, while the materials themself might be stable, the detenators are not, how long ago was this done? also where is the kilometers of cabling? if using radio, how did they prevent accidental triggering by a rogue background signal?

I presume you've never seen this then?



Security for the Towers, Washington Dulles Airport, Boston Airport and United Airlines was handled by a certain company with strong Bush family ties called Securacom (Stratesec). Marvin Bush, Dubya's youngest brother, was on the board at Securacom for 7 years until 2000. The company went bust in 2002.

 

[RickofBHAFC]

Personally I tend to ignore the conspiracy theorists because the select facts that fit their wacky ideas and ignore lots of others. I don't believe for one minute that the event was planned by the US government but they are almost certainly guilty of gross negligence in respect of the fact that there were warnings and in fact I understand that one of the most vocal members of government against terrorists left his post and took up a position as head of security at the twin towers where he lost his life. As for the actual collapse, there was some time ago a documentary questioning whether the collapse was due to a defect in the design or whether the strength of the design gave enough time for those below the impact area to get out and survive.

I had never heard anything about any of the conspiracy theories until someone sent me an email link to something on YouTube which I found fascinating and is well worth viewing and actually is scary. If you search for 'WTC 7 Conspiracy' you will find it. WTC 7 was the smaller building adjacent to the twin towers which also collapsed. No planes struck it yet it collapsed. There is an organisation called AE911Truth.org (Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth) who have produced the video. A whole group of structural engineers, architects and other experts were consulted and agreed that WTC 7 could not have collapsed in the way it did unless by controlled explosion. Witnesses near the scene heard explosions - these can also be heard on video clips from the scene at the time, investigation afterwards found that concrete and steel had melted like 'lava', small spherical beads of steel were found in the rubble which were consistent with thermide explosive detonation as experts say only thermide could have produced such high temperatures. Links to other video clips are also on YouTube - one shows how witnesses and campaigners for 9/11 truth have mysteriously died since the event. Other things that intrigued me . . . slow motion film of one of the aircraft supposedly flying into one of the towers and appearing to 'melt' into the building with no impact damage to the aircraft, no bits flying off etc as if it was a special effect (think of the excellent CGI graphics in films now). One of the aircraft flying into the towers is in bright sunlight and yet on the film footage appears as a 'black shadow' with no colours or markings visible. Another clip shows one of the aircraft appearing bland grey in colour when the airline it is supposed to represent had distinct bright blue wings and tail . . . all very strange and has left me wondering.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION], I'm a little confused. Are you arguing that the World Trade Centre Tower 7 collapsed because of a preplanned controlled explosion? You seem to be suggesting that it might have been used as a control centre for the attacks on towers 1 and 2 and that because it housed:

" thousands of documents relating to ongoing SEC (securities and exchange commission) investigations, including documentation relating to the Enron scandal, which of course would have been pretty convenient for George W Bush's good friend Ken Lay"

You have posted the youtube clip of Larry Silverstein saying that he agreed to 'pull it'(WTCT7). You have also said that it would take a couple of weeks preparation to set up a controlled demolition. Presumably the tower was in use in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11 so when did the preparations take place? Surely someone would have noticed? No matter, Larry Silverstein knew about it:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure whether they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse"

In that quote he implies that the fire department commander knew about it too. Or if he didn't, then he found out about it in that conversation. If he found out about it in that conversation, he would surely have been confused-if not downright angry- that his men had been battling a fire in a building that had been rigged to collapse anyway?! If the building had been rigged why would Silverstein give the reason for 'pulling it' as we've already had such terrible loss of life? If they couldn't control the fire in the tower why not let the fire do the job of destroying the building rather than risk people noticing it's collapse looking suspicious? The thing that really confuses me here though, is, if it was preplanned, why would Silverstein admit it?!

If it was preplanned as part of a cover up, why would they warn people that it was about to come down? Wouldn't this needlessly create room for people to ask questions like you have been asking? Wouldn't it needlessly add fans to the flames(no pun intended) of conspiracy? Why not let it go down wthout warning? I'm sure they wouldn't balk at a few more deaths after what they had done to Towers 1 and 2, and what they had lined up post 9/11. It would only add to the repugnant nature of the terrorist attack, no?

I'm also a bit confused about your claims towards Towers 1 and 2. As you said earlier, it would take a couple of weeks to plan and rig a controlled explosion of a building. There was no time leading up to the attacks to rig it. You mention that in one of the youtube videos it says that between 96-2000 a new security system was installed at the WTC, and that this four year window could have given them the opportunity to do it. It also mentions the companies links to 'the administration'. Wasn't Clinton the president from 96-00? Securacom's links were to the Bush administration? Or do they have other links too? Did they really rig the building and then leave it like that for a considerable period of time? Would no one have noticed?

Apologies if I've completely misunderstood your points. If I haven't could you clear up some of the questions so that I can understand better your arguments?

 

[beorhthelm]

I presume you've never seen this then?

we covered this above. im not very interested in the board membership of security companies, i dont have the time nor inclination to research if there is anything substantial to this link. often board members do nothing in the company but offer input to the board in favour of the shareholders. other times they might have complete control over operations and can instruct people to arrange access for the CIA/Mossad to rig the building with explosives for a future demolition.

 

[beorhthelm]

... A whole group of structural engineers, architects and other experts were consulted and agreed that WTC 7 could not have collapsed in the way it did unless by controlled explosion. Witnesses near the scene heard explosions - these can also be heard on video clips from the scene at the time, investigation afterwards found that concrete and steel had melted like 'lava', small spherical beads of steel were found in the rubble which were consistent with thermide explosive detonation as experts say only thermide could have produced such high temperatures.

and if you look hard enough (or rather want to), your find engineers and architects that will says it looks normal. you will also find engineers, architects and other witnesses that are pissed they have been misquoted and editted to say something they dont believe. anywho, thanks for once more highlighting the central flaw to the demolition theory: explosions were heard but apparent evidence for "thermide explosives" where found, but thermite doesnt explode so woulndt be heard. there are also experts how say you couldnt physically rig a building with enough thermite, it requires alot (in volume) to do what has been claimed. go and find a youtube footage of controlled demolition, listen and then listen to the 9/11 footage and hear how they compare.

 

[NMH]

What are peoples thoughts on this? Obviously it was dreadful event, as we all would agree, but what do people on here believe? Over the years I've heard many a conspiracy. And after watching several 9/11 things this past week I wondered about others views, Terrorists or Inside job?

On a side note, hasn't time flown by!

Terrorists. The conspiracy theorists are always ready to bound forth (after smoking a fat one) and expound their reasoning.
Believe me, the US Government would never have needed to do something like that at home, to excuse heading off abroad to screw up an enemy state.

It's stupid stuff, but those who accuse the Bush administration of doing it, seem to stumble past the intrinsic fact that if they were so callous and intent as to want to do such a ridiculous act, they would be (and were) callous enough to be able to excuse a war without doing it.

Terrorists had tried before, so it was fairly predictable that they would try again. Hindsight is 20/20 now, so it might be simple to suggest they'd try using planes.... but that was not so predictable.

Every time you use a UK or US airport (not sure about the ROTW), you experience the legacy of 9/11.

 

[dingodan]

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION], I'm a little confused. Are you arguing that the World Trade Centre Tower 7 collapsed because of a preplanned controlled explosion? You seem to be suggesting that it might have been used as a control centre for the attacks on towers 1 and 2 and that because it housed:

" thousands of documents relating to ongoing SEC (securities and exchange commission) investigations, including documentation relating to the Enron scandal, which of course would have been pretty convenient for George W Bush's good friend Ken Lay"

You have posted the youtube clip of Larry Silverstein saying that he agreed to 'pull it'(WTCT7). You have also said that it would take a couple of weeks preparation to set up a controlled demolition. Presumably the tower was in use in the days and weeks leading up to 9/11 so when did the preparations take place? Surely someone would have noticed? No matter, Larry Silverstein knew about it:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure whether they were going to be able to contain the fire. And I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse"

In that quote he implies that the fire department commander knew about it too. Or if he didn't, then he found out about it in that conversation. If he found out about it in that conversation, he would surely have been confused-if not downright angry- that his men had been battling a fire in a building that had been rigged to collapse anyway?! If the building had been rigged why would Silverstein give the reason for 'pulling it' as we've already had such terrible loss of life? If they couldn't control the fire in the tower why not let the fire do the job of destroying the building rather than risk people noticing it's collapse looking suspicious? The thing that really confuses me here though, is, if it was preplanned, why would Silverstein admit it?!

If it was preplanned as part of a cover up, why would they warn people that it was about to come down? Wouldn't this needlessly create room for people to ask questions like you have been asking? Wouldn't it needlessly add fans to the flames(no pun intended) of conspiracy? Why not let it go down wthout warning? I'm sure they wouldn't balk at a few more deaths after what they had done to Towers 1 and 2, and what they had lined up post 9/11. It would only add to the repugnant nature of the terrorist attack, no?

I'm also a bit confused about your claims towards Towers 1 and 2. As you said earlier, it would take a couple of weeks to plan and rig a controlled explosion of a building. There was no time leading up to the attacks to rig it. You mention that in one of the youtube videos it says that between 96-2000 a new security system was installed at the WTC, and that this four year window could have given them the opportunity to do it. It also mentions the companies links to 'the administration'. Wasn't Clinton the president from 96-00? Securacom's links were to the Bush administration? Or do they have other links too? Did they really rig the building and then leave it like that for a considerable period of time? Would no one have noticed?

Apologies if I've completely misunderstood your points. If I haven't could you clear up some of the questions so that I can understand better your arguments?

You have not misunderstood what I have said, other than to assume that I claim to know what happened.

"You seem to be suggesting that it might have been used as a control centre for the attacks on towers 1 and 2 *and that because it housed:

" thousands of documents relating to ongoing SEC (securities and exchange commission) investigations, including documentation relating to the Enron scandal, which of course would have been pretty convenient for George W Bush's good friend Ken Lay"

I speculated that this was possibe, if you hold the view that it was a military operation. *But this has nothing to do with the SEC documents which were destroyed in the building collapse.

Your questions about Silverstein and the fire dept are good questions. And I don't claim to know. "If they couldn't control the fire in the tower why not let the fire do the job of destroying the building" Agreed. But are you saying that this is what you think they did? because you only have to watch it collapse to see its an orange (see the video previous).

why would they warn people that it was about to come down? Dont know. My question is, looking at the building and its collapse, how could they warn people it was coming down? It did not come down in a 20 minute deterioration, it came down neatly in the space of about 9 seconds.

As you said earlier, it would take a couple of weeks to plan and rig a controlled explosion of a building. There was no time leading up to the attacks to rig it.
There were two opportunities that I am aware of the power down on the weekend prior and the long term contract held by Securacom for installing the new security system. Yes the Clinton Administration was in the WhiteHouse during most of the 90's. But this is more likely (if a conspiracy) to have been the work of the military industrial complex than the office of the presidency. Who is or is not president has little affect on anything in truth. A prime candidate for involvment for me is Dick Cheney, he was out of the whitehouse in the 90's but still very much involved in the military industrial complex (Haliberton).

From Wiki:
Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions. Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.

Incidentally the Bush family have been involved in the Carlyle Group for some time and both Carlyle and Haliberton made significant profits from the wars to be unleashed as a result of 9/11. Strangely (or not) the Bin ladin family also had significant interest in Carlyle.

Halliburton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carlyle Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In general though, when ever I express my views that this was a military operation, I get asked for answers which I cannot possibly have. I have pointed out some interesting facts and have given my opinion with respect to them, but I cannot tell you exactly what happened, and to ask that of me is abit much isn't it.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

just a bit bored of the constant bombardment of tv shows from the fireman's point of view, office worker, fly on the wall, cockroach, rat, god...etc. Why are there no programmes about the tube every year aside from the fact of the number of victims.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I was working/living in the USA at the time (Chicago) and my comments at the time to the Americans I knew was that they should look very closely at why it happened and what prompted terrorists to target the USA rather than some other country. Maybe, just maybe if the USA had taken a more even-handed approach to the Israel/Palestine problem and put pressure on Israel to reach agreement over the issue of a Palestinian state there would not have been such hatred of America in Muslim eyes.

There is NO excuse for 9/11.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

You have not misunderstood what I have said, other than to assume that I claim to know what happened.



In general though, when ever I express my views that this was a military operation, I get asked for answers which I cannot possibly have. I have pointed out some interesting facts and have given my opinion with respect to them, but I cannot tell you exactly what happened, and to ask that of me is abit much isn't it.

I wasn't asking you what exactly happened, I just wanted to clarify your position for my own edification. You've posted the most on this thread and have been arguing against the general consensus so I wanted to know your position clearly. Now I do, thanks.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

just a bit bored of the constant bombardment of tv shows from the fireman's point of view, office worker, fly on the wall, cockroach, rat, god...etc. Why are there no programmes about the tube every year aside from the fact of the number of victims.

Possibly because its not the 10th anniversary. It has reached the peak this year re 9/11 I believe. It will always be an important date for family and friends whatever anniversary it is. Also the 7/7 bombing although terrible did not change the World forever. 9/11 did, more than any single event in human history , even the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan imo.

 

[dingodan]

the fire in the buildings did cause the collapse

That is a bold statement. If you know nothing about physics you should'nt draw such definitive conclusions, if you know a little about physics you should question this statement.

No steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire. On 9/11 supposedly 3 buildings collapsed from fire. It could be argued that WTC1 & 2 were hit by planes and that this somehow was able to weaken the building although, in terms of heat, the jet fuel burned up on impact, and in terms of the effect of the impact alone, this could not have affected the structural integrity of the lower half of the building.

I am also amazed that people can watch all three buildings collapse downward through the path of most resistance, at speeds resembling "free fall" and not question how this is physically possible. Even if they were to fall in a chain-reaction "pancake" collapse, they would still experience a degree of resistance. A free fall collapse requires all of the supporting structure, from top to bottom, to fail simultaneously.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

That is a bold statement. If you know nothing about physics you should'nt draw such definitive conclusions, if you know a little about physics you should question this statement.

No steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire. On 9/11 supposedly 3 buildings collapsed from fire. It could be argued that WTC1 & 2 were hit by planes and that this somehow was able to weaken the building although in terms of heat, the jet fuel burned up on impact, and in terms of the effect of the impact alone, this could not have affected the structural integrity of the lower half of the building.

I am also amazed that people can watch all three buildings collapse downward through the path of most resistance, at speeds resembling "free fall" and not question how this is physically possible. Even if they were to fall in a chain-reaction "pancake" collapse, they would still experience a degree of resistance. A free fall collapse requires all of the supporting structure, from top to bottom, to fail simultaneously.

This has already been covered and proved how it happened. You must have missed it. I am sorry to spoil your fun but it happened, it was a terrorist attack and nearly 3000 people died. That is what happened. Please don't waste anymore of your time with these conspiracy theories.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I am also amazed that people can watch all three buildings collapse downward through the path of most resistance, at speeds resembling "free fall" and not question how this is physically possible. Even if they were to fall in a chain-reaction "pancake" collapse, they would still experience a degree of resistance. A free fall collapse requires all of the supporting structure, from top to bottom, to fail simultaneously.

[MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION], you do seem to concentrate only on the evidence that suits your hypothesis. I've already posted this link, and there have been numerous studies regarding the effects of the collapse, because all architects, engineers etc. seek to learn from failures such has occurred at WTC. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html. You're expertise on building collapses through collisions with jet aircraft is astounding given this is the first time it's happened.

 

[dingodan]

This has already been covered and proved how it happened. You must have missed it. I am sorry to spoil your fun but it happened, it was a terrorist attack and nearly 3000 people died. That is what happened. Please don't waste anymore of your time with these conspiracy theories.

I don't dispute this and never have. I might suggest a different group was responsible, but I am hardly saying 9/11 did not happen.

If you are saying that someone has proved that the buildings did structurally fail, in their entirety, as a result of fire, then I am surprised. Thanks for the info. When did they laws of physics change?

Thanks for bringing facts and an objective perspective to the conversation.